In a joint statement, Brookings Institution scholar William Galston and WEEKLY STANDARD editor Bill Kristol offer a defense of the “basic institutions and principles of liberal democracy” which they argue are under assault. Read the full statement below:

The authors of this statement do not make an obvious team. Over the past four decades we have never voted for the same presidential candidate. Weve worked in White Houses of different parties. One of us was a senior aide to a presidential candidate who sought to replace the president the other worked for.

We’ve differed on major policy issues. One of us vigorously backed the war in Iraq; the other just as vigorously opposed it. We’ve publicly debated many times, usually focusing on our differences. These disagreements persist.

(Snip)

And we stand together against an alternative right disdainful of the traditions of American conservatism and a vocal left that blends socialist economics with identity politics. We stand together against a dangerous impatience with the legal forms and constitutional constraints that are guarantors of our liberty. We stand together in defense of an open, generous liberal democracy as the strongest foundation for addressing the very real challenges that we face and the legitimate frustrations with the status quo that we feel.

I am not now, nor will I ever be, a populist. Evidently, that separates me from a growing number of commentators, including some conservatives, wistfully engaged in Washingtons latest fad: over-interpreting Donald Trumps victory in the 2016 presidential election.

The normally sensible Mike Lee, Republican senator from Utah, took to our pages to plead the case of principled populism  which is akin to calling for a sober Bacchanalia. Not surprisingly, Senator Lees brief doesnt get very far before strangling in its own illogic, as odes to populism inevitably do. The characteristic weakness of populism, he tells us, is the lack of a coherent philosophy, which inevitably makes its proposals (Id have said careenings) inconsistent and unserious. Well, yes . . . that is because populism is inherently unprincipled, inconsistent, and unserious, such that arguing for principled populism is so much nonsense.

Dear Reader (including the many of you who are apparently disappointed I didnt spontaneously combust on election night),

Last week I wrote, Long ago, I made peace with the fact that this election will yield one form of ass ache or another.

So, I fully expected to wake up the day after the election depressed and walking like the proctologist refused to take off the catchers mitt. Instead, to my gleeful surprise and my detractors apparent dyspeptic dismay, Im in a great mood.

(Snip)

In other words, if Trump is going to be a successful president  and I hope he is one  he will have to start disappointing his biggest fans. For example, he would be a fool if he indulged the Bannonites in an effort to destroy Paul Ryan. A successful first hundred days absolutely requires teamwork with the party leadership. Launching a civil war among Republicans would be incandescently stupid.

Similarly, as I predicted, he appears fast at work in hammering out a deal on infrastructure with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Im actually not opposed to an infrastructure package per se, depending on the details, though Im very skeptical about the Keynesian assumptions behind such things. I also think its hilariously ironic that the first big priority after a GOP victory might end up being . . . a New Dealstyle jobs bill.

But my point here is simply that whatever choices he makes now will, as a matter of epistemological, metaphysical, and ontological fact, require trade-offs, concessions, and compromises. Thats fine with me because I never remotely believed he could bring in the unicorn herd in the first place. I knew, and still know, that whatever he delivers will at best be a few nice horses, and a good number of farty mules.

Let’s stop beating around the bush, shall we? Are we ready to start a violent revolution? Shall we drag government officials from their offices by the hair? Are we going to start killing people? If the answers to those questions are “no,” and they damn well should be, then we need to stow this nonsense about refusing to accept election results.

In the third and final presidential debate, Donald Trump said that he “will tell [us] at the time” whether he accepts the outcome on election night. Coming as it did after a week of rhetoric alleging a “rigged” presidential race, the comment prompted widespread indignation. What is Trump suggesting? What does refusing to accept election results look like?

Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway attempted to spin the comment as a reference to the sort of challenge which occurred in 2000, when Al Gore retracted his concession to George W. Bush as the results in Florida came into question. But is that what Trump actually meant? Is that what his supporters heard?

At face value, an unqualified refusal to concede threatens a peaceful transfer of power. Without clarification of his intent, Trump’s comment suggests some form of violent revolution. PJ Media founder Roger L. Simon shared a provocative take on that.

“WHY would we want to go to war with Russia? WHY would we want to go to war period???”

1. One of the things history teaches us is Something Always Happens.
2. Why? Because war is what we (humans) do. 6,000 years of recorded history, find a ten year period where one group of humans have not been at war with another group of humans.
3 Russia? Because sometime you have to smack a bully upside the head to get their attention.

“This was one of Giuliani’s causes, and the biggest reason I opposed him. Rejoining the NAMBLA crowd with mainstream gay activism is the raison detre for The Stonewall Veterans, of which organization Rudy was a meeting attending board member.”

“Rudy Guiliani has marched in lockstep with liberals on affirmative action, gay rights, gay marriage, gun control, school prayer, tuition tax credits, liberal immigration policies, and he’s reinforced it, time and time again. Just about everytime Rudy opens his mouth, offensive liberal words come pouring out. As Mayor, Rudy put liberals in high-paid city jobs, an indication what a Rudy WH would look like. Here then is Rudy in his own words:”

_______________________________________________________

Now let me just say I am and always have been a fan of The Mayor. That said, there was a time, not that long ago when was a bad terrible evil person that no “Real” conservative could support. That was then...this is now because he is supporting a certain NY liberal.

A Remington Research Group poll released Friday shows 80 percent of voters support Ryan in his Wisconsin primary, compared to a mere 14 percent backing challenger Paul Nehlen, a conservative Trump supporter.

Trump insists that he loves America, but does he respect our country? When he equates our conduct with that of vicious authoritarians and/or claims that our troubles deprive us of moral authority on the world stage, it makes me wonder.

In the three years since Edward Snowden landed in Moscow, his relationship with his hosts has been a source of much speculation and controversy. The American IT contractor, who worked for the CIA and NSA until he fled Hawaii with more than a million purloined secret files, has not left Russia since he arrived at Sheremetyevo airport on 23 June 2013, on a flight from Hong Kong.

(Snip)

Then there is the messy question of Snowdens ties with the Kremlin. To anybody acquainted with the world of espionage, particularly when it involves Russians, Snowden is a defector and his collaboration with Moscows security agencies is a sure thing  as I explained recently.

(Snip)

Now, the Kremlin has settled the issue once and for all by stating that Edward Snowden is indeed their man. In a remarkable interview this week, Franz Klintsevich, a senior Russian security official, explained the case matter-of-factly: Lets be frank. Snowden did share intelligence. This is what security services do. If theres a possibility to get information, they will get it.

With this, Klintsevich simply said what all intelligence professionals already knew  that Snowden is a collaborator with the FSB. That he really had no choice in the matter once he set foot in Russia does not change the facts.

Klintsevich is no idle speculator. He is a senator who has served in the State Duma for nearly a decade. More importantly, he is the deputy chair of the senates defense and security committee, which oversees the special services. The 59-year-old Klintsevich thus has access to many state secrets  for instance regarding the Snowden case.

Being an unlicensed historian after years of study of 6,000 years of recorded history, I have come two one of two conclusions
1. We do like war. Because We fight wars all the time.
2. We’re not really very good at this Peace thing.

As a conservative who believes in individual responsibility, limited government, free markets, caution in making social changes, and a robust foreign policy, all my adult life I have been a Republican and (with the single exception of an eccentric race for attorney general in Philadelphia, when the Democrat was tougher than the Republican) I always vote Republican.

But the Republican presidential primary of 2016 is unlike any other because the most popular candidate  Donald J. Trump  not only ignores conservative values but, to put it delicately, lacks the knowledge, experience, dignity, and character to serve as president of the United States.

(Snip)

Opposing Trump goes without saying; but whom to support? (To be clear, we are talking about my personal support, unconnected to the non-profit I head.) Other than Trump, I could have endorsed any of the original 17 Republicans (yes, even Chris Christie). But because the field was so large and confused (remember when Scott Walker led the pack?), I hung back, waiting for the emergence of a clear alternative to Trump.

Senator Cruz clearly became that alternative when Marco Rubio withdrew.

Ive met Cruz a few times and was impressed by him. More importantly, I admire his emphasis on following the Constitution and controlling government spending. I have closely followed his positions in my two bailiwicks, the Middle East and Islamism, where he has shown bold consistency. Examples:

Thing is when this race is over and DT crawls back under whatever rock he crawled out of, questions will/should be asked of strong DT supporters. It may very well be that there will be consequences for actions taken.

BTW and for the record when this race started Ted Cruz was....6th...7th on my list of candidates I supported. Now he's "The Rightward Most Viable Candidate."

The problem is waaaaay to many people (including Douchbag Trump) have no idea of what torture is, is no waterboarding is not torture. What we did to the 3 prisoners at Gitmo was not torture. What we see here is another example of the lack of knowledge on the part of the American voter....in particular the minions of The Douchbag.